# Another proposed constitutional amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2012, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746 "2012-04-14T07:58:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/61 "2012-04-16T00:23:12Z")
An abridge too far, was it? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/62 "2012-04-16T00:41:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Voter fraud, rigged elections, and stolen votes have an impact on “democracy”. Speech doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent anyone from voting. This isn’t about “speech”, it’s about _money_. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a “democratic” facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/63 "2012-04-16T00:50:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This isn’t about “speech”, it’s about _money_. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a “democratic” facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace. Ever the Pollyanna, you! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/64 "2012-04-16T00:52:38Z")
**Der** , you exaggerate. I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate. There’s a major chunk of truth to what you say. But you exaggerate. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/65 "2012-04-16T00:54:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This isn’t about “speech”, it’s about _money_. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a “democratic” facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace. As has been pointed out in this thread, speech requires money. Unless you believe that freedom of speech is only limited to shouting in the public square (and even then it cost money to eat the food that your body converted into energy to allow the speech) then it costs money to speak. Would you put similar “money does not equal the right” limitations on the other rights in the first ten amendments? Can I go to church so long as I don’t buy gas, pay a bus fare, or put a donation in the collection plate? Can I keep and bear arms, so long as they are given to me for free? Is my property secure from unreasonable searches and seizures provided I didn’t pay anything for it? Can I be represented by an attorney, but I can’t pay out of pocket for one? So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I’m failing to see the outrage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/66 "2012-04-16T01:01:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > As has been pointed out in this thread, speech requires money. Unless you believe that freedom of speech is only limited to shouting in the public square (and even then it cost money to eat the food that your body converted into energy to allow the speech) then it costs money to speak. > > Would you put similar “money does not equal the right” limitations on the other rights in the first ten amendments? Can I go to church so long as I don’t buy gas, pay a bus fare, or put a donation in the collection plate? Can I keep and bear arms, so long as they are given to me for free? Is my property secure from unreasonable searches and seizures provided I didn’t pay anything for it? Can I be represented by an attorney, but I can’t pay out of pocket for one? > > So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I’m failing to see the outrage. Don’t forget that it’s freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech. While there might be some scintilla of an argument, still bogus, that speech doesn’t require money, no one can claim that “the press” doesn’t. Virtually every newspaper in the country is a corporation that routinely endorses (and shills for) political candidates. That’s the freedom spelled out in the 1st Amendment, and I’ve never heard anyone on this MB complain about it (except when Fox does it). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/67 "2012-04-16T01:04:53Z")
> [@](#): > > …So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I’m failing to see the outrage. “Failing” to see the outrage? Just so. Well put. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/68 "2012-04-16T01:20:14Z")
I got a “D” in outrage, myself. Barely passed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/69 "2012-04-16T06:25:45Z")
I refused to have my outrage judged and graded by bourgeois lackeys of the ruling class. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/70 "2012-04-16T16:33:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This. It would turn the whole idea of free speech on its head. No free political speech (which was what was meant to be protected) but free pornography speech and other such things. > > You might as well say that we have a freedom of the press, but that no money can be spent producing the newspaper, or that we have a freedom of religion but you can’t spend gas money driving to church. The grumbling over Citizens isn’t about how money is spent; it’s about how it is _collected_. To that extent, I think the OP’s suggestion is silly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/71 "2012-04-16T17:00:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The grumbling over Citizens isn’t about how money is spent; it’s about how it is _collected_. Can you explain? I honestly don’t understand what you mean by the grumbling about how the money is collected. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/72 "2012-04-16T18:02:25Z")
There seems to be two issues here, one it the ideals of Democracy and the other is the ideals of the constitution. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the the two are necessarily compatible. It is entirely possible that the constitution as it is written and the world as it stands lead inevitably to the failure of democracy. In the same way that if concealable nuclear weapons were available we would have to choose between 2nd amendment rights and survival as a nation. The procedure of constitutional amendment was designed to take care of such circumstances. Certainly there should be a way to write such an amendment that fixes what needs to be fixed without throwing out the good parts. On another note Would it be constitutional to have a graduated tax on campaign contributions such that extremely large donations become prohibitively expensive? Say a marginal tax rate of (1-0.5^(N/50000)) where N is the amount of the donation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746/73 "2012-04-16T18:34:19Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > There seems to be two issues here, one it the ideals of Democracy and the other is the ideals of the constitution. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the the two are necessarily compatible. It is entirely possible that the constitution as it is written and the world as it stands lead inevitably to the failure of democracy. In the same way that if concealable nuclear weapons were available we would have to choose between 2nd amendment rights and survival as a nation. > > The procedure of constitutional amendment was designed to take care of such circumstances. Certainly there should be a way to write such an amendment that fixes what needs to be fixed without throwing out the good parts. True and good points. Keep in mind that much of this thread has devolved into a discussion about the constitutionality of the _Citizens United_ case, and not about the proposed amendment. > [@](#): > > On another note > Would it be constitutional to have a graduated tax on campaign contributions such that extremely large donations become prohibitively expensive? Say a marginal tax rate of (1-0.5^(N/50000)) where N is the amount of the donation. The _CU_ case did not affect campaign contributions-- ie, contributions to candidates. It addressed whether corporations (or other groups) had the constitutional right to run ads on their own. From my perspective, I wouldn’t like your proposal. Forbidding a person to do something and making it impossibly expensive to do something are the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-proposed-constitutional-amendment/618746.md?page=3)